AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The forum just turned ten years old! Where has all the time gone?

Author Topic: Erroneous road signs  (Read 1207296 times)

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9589
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:42:53 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4400 on: December 19, 2018, 01:29:41 AM »

Not sure if this should be posted here or in the US/SR shield mix-up thread, but this street blade along US 79 in Tennessee claims the highway is "State Route 79":
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0234805,-88.6115991,3a,15y,311.72h,86.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suUDcaziw-XPhyn4CS8JzOg!2e0!5s20160801T000000!7i13312!8i6656
However, as it's in text and not a shield, I'm not sure if it's supposed to be here or in the other thread. Feel free to yell at me and/or move the post if it is the other thread that this should be in.

I'm even more confused as Street View insists the road is "State Highway 76".
TN 76 and US 79 do have a concurrency (sounds like a pretty long one at that), though I'm not sure if that part of the road is part of the concurrency or not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_State_Route_76#Haywood_County

I've noticed that if a state route is concurrent with a US route, Google will more oftenly refer to it by the state route rather than the US route (or even Interstate). This is especially annoying in Alabama, where every US route has a hidden state designation.

Yes, that sounds annoying. Kind of makes me wonder why more states don't have rules where everything is automatically a state route, even if it says "US" or "INTERSTATE".

For example, that US-79 example in TN would be WA-79 in WA, even if the shields all say "US". Everything is basically a hidden state route (I-5 is WA-5, US-2 is WA-2, etc). So, in a sense, there is no way to mix up "SR" and "US" or "I", since legally, "SR" is always correct at the most basic level.

Utah is interesting in that all routes are legislatively defined as the same type of route, so I-15 is legislatively defined as SR-15, US 89 as SR-89, etc. However, US 89 is actually referenced as US 89, not SR 89. That goes for all interstate and US routes: all are defined as SR, but referenced as I or US.

I certainly prefer the UT/WA way, where everything is state route but sometimes dressed up as something else, to the AL approach where US routes are concurrent with an entirely different state route number. The former easily prevents duplicate numbers, which is something I believe should be avoided.
Logged
Avid user of bit.ly. I would never post malicious links, but if you'd like to verify my links for peace of mind, feel free to use either of these sites. Thanks!

https://wheregoes.com/
http://getlinkinfo.com/

freebrickproductions

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2167
  • The traffic signal enthusiast for north Alabama.

  • Age: -6982
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
  • Last Login: December 19, 2018, 02:35:12 AM
    • Mike's Railroad Crossing Website
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4401 on: December 19, 2018, 02:30:34 AM »

Not sure if this should be posted here or in the US/SR shield mix-up thread, but this street blade along US 79 in Tennessee claims the highway is "State Route 79":
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0234805,-88.6115991,3a,15y,311.72h,86.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suUDcaziw-XPhyn4CS8JzOg!2e0!5s20160801T000000!7i13312!8i6656
However, as it's in text and not a shield, I'm not sure if it's supposed to be here or in the other thread. Feel free to yell at me and/or move the post if it is the other thread that this should be in.

I'm even more confused as Street View insists the road is "State Highway 76".
TN 76 and US 79 do have a concurrency (sounds like a pretty long one at that), though I'm not sure if that part of the road is part of the concurrency or not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_State_Route_76#Haywood_County

I've noticed that if a state route is concurrent with a US route, Google will more oftenly refer to it by the state route rather than the US route (or even Interstate). This is especially annoying in Alabama, where every US route has a hidden state designation.

Yes, that sounds annoying. Kind of makes me wonder why more states don't have rules where everything is automatically a state route, even if it says "US" or "INTERSTATE".

For example, that US-79 example in TN would be WA-79 in WA, even if the shields all say "US". Everything is basically a hidden state route (I-5 is WA-5, US-2 is WA-2, etc). So, in a sense, there is no way to mix up "SR" and "US" or "I", since legally, "SR" is always correct at the most basic level.

Utah is interesting in that all routes are legislatively defined as the same type of route, so I-15 is legislatively defined as SR-15, US 89 as SR-89, etc. However, US 89 is actually referenced as US 89, not SR 89. That goes for all interstate and US routes: all are defined as SR, but referenced as I or US.

I certainly prefer the UT/WA way, where everything is state route but sometimes dressed up as something else, to the AL approach where US routes are concurrent with an entirely different state route number. The former easily prevents duplicate numbers, which is something I believe should be avoided.
I'd prefer that for Alabama as well, especially since it'd free up some low numbers for important state route corridors (and get rid of the state routes that duplicate the interstate's numbers), as well as making any mismatched US/SR shields for the US routes technically correct.

Florida also does their hidden designations the same way as Alabama, though they at least have the excuse of using a grid system that requires them to use a different number for the US routes.
Logged
It's all fun & games until someone summons Cthulhu and brings about the end of the world.

I also collect traffic lights, road signs, fans, and railroad crossing equipment.

Eth

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2317
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Georgia
  • Last Login: Today at 10:26:08 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4402 on: December 19, 2018, 08:41:08 AM »

Georgia does it the same way as AL/FL/TN, where the US routes are essentially just an overlay on top of the existing state route system, but just doesn't see the point in hiding it. :) (And occasionally a route is better known by its state route number than its US number; it's always "highway 42" in the McDonough/Stockbridge area, for instance, not "highway 23".)
« Last Edit: December 19, 2018, 08:43:39 AM by Eth »
Logged

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13025
  • A sense of humor is a wonderful thing. Get one.

  • Age: 57
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: Today at 02:18:56 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4403 on: December 19, 2018, 10:12:54 AM »

Every US route in Tennessee has a separate state route designation. Most of the time, the state route designation is unsigned, except for the mile markers that bear the state route number. In some places, the concurrency is signed, but not very many.
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9857
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: Today at 05:35:31 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4404 on: December 19, 2018, 02:59:50 PM »

Kind of makes me wonder why more states don't have rules where everything is automatically a state route, even if it says "US" or "INTERSTATE".

For example, that US-79 example in TN would be WA-79 in WA, even if the shields all say "US". Everything is basically a hidden state route (I-5 is WA-5, US-2 is WA-2, etc). So, in a sense, there is no way to mix up "SR" and "US" or "I", since legally, "SR" is always correct at the most basic level.

That would prevent the state from duplicating numbers across different highway classifications.  I really don't think Cicero Avenue in Chicago should be renumbered just because of the existence of US-50 more than 150 miles south of Kankakee.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9589
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:42:53 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4405 on: December 19, 2018, 03:18:59 PM »

That would prevent the state from duplicating numbers across different highway classifications. I really don't think Cicero Avenue in Chicago should be renumbered just because of the existence of US-50 more than 150 miles south of Kankakee

I don't see why this is ever desirable, even if duplicate route numbers are miles apart.

Why does Cicero Ave have to have a "route 50" designation?

The way the UK does it, I can sort of understand. It's one route, with one number. It can either be (for example) "A3", "M3", or "A3(M)", depending on the road, but it's still a single line on a map. That's not the case in some US states, where there could be three of the same route numbers, without any connection between them. Needlessly confusing when there's literally thousands of options for numbers...you just have to avoid the one's designated for interstates and US routes.

Is there really a chance for confusion? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how close the routes are to each other. I seem to recall some pretty bad examples in LA and NC. Regardless, it's best to just not allow it. Don't let people confuse "route X" for "US X" or "I-X". Just make everything "route X" with a fancy shield if need-be.
Logged
Avid user of bit.ly. I would never post malicious links, but if you'd like to verify my links for peace of mind, feel free to use either of these sites. Thanks!

https://wheregoes.com/
http://getlinkinfo.com/

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9857
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: Today at 05:35:31 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4406 on: December 19, 2018, 04:27:11 PM »

That would prevent the state from duplicating numbers across different highway classifications. I really don't think Cicero Avenue in Chicago should be renumbered just because of the existence of US-50 more than 150 miles south of Kankakee

I don't see why this is ever desirable, even if duplicate route numbers are miles apart.

Why does Cicero Ave have to have a "route 50" designation?

I don't see why it's undesirable.

One reason it might be desirable is to use as many lower numbers as possible, as those are arguably easier for people to read and remember.  No sense in using larger numbers when there are smaller numbers going unused.

Take, for example, MO-49.  No chance in hell it could ever be mistaken for I-49, yet you'd have the state write legislation to change the route number, the highway department put up new signage, residents and businesses change their address, etc, etc...  All for what gain?
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

apeman33

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 301
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Augusta, KS
  • Last Login: April 02, 2019, 04:40:37 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4407 on: December 19, 2018, 04:29:15 PM »

Posted either sometime this morning or very early afternoon, the perhaps first-ever documentation of a white sunflower shield.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2018, 04:32:22 PM by apeman33 »
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9857
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: Today at 05:35:31 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4408 on: December 19, 2018, 04:42:34 PM »

Posted either sometime this morning or very early afternoon, the perhaps first-ever documentation of a white sunflower shield.


This should probably have been posted in the "Signs with Design Errors" thread, but...

Do you know if any of the other approaches have similar white sunflowers?  I'll be passing through that junction in a few days.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

US 89

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1863
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City, UT/Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:51:43 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4409 on: December 19, 2018, 05:42:17 PM »

Kind of makes me wonder why more states don't have rules where everything is automatically a state route, even if it says "US" or "INTERSTATE".

For example, that US-79 example in TN would be WA-79 in WA, even if the shields all say "US". Everything is basically a hidden state route (I-5 is WA-5, US-2 is WA-2, etc). So, in a sense, there is no way to mix up "SR" and "US" or "I", since legally, "SR" is always correct at the most basic level.

That would prevent the state from duplicating numbers across different highway classifications.  I really don't think Cicero Avenue in Chicago should be renumbered just because of the existence of US-50 more than 150 miles south of Kankakee.

When Utah changed to its modern system in 1977, it renumbered SR-50 to SR-26 simply due to the existence of US-50 200 miles to the south. Of course, it should be noted that there were several examples from that renumbering that were far more confusing: SR-15 actually intersected I-15, as did I-84 and SR-84 (which actually was largely a parallel route to I-15/84).

As it is today, I see no problem with Utah's system. Under the old system, you could have one US highway falling under multiple legislative designations (as an example, the independent portions of US-89 were officially a combination of SR-259, 11, 258, 118, 24, 28, 32, 8, 271, 169, 49, 50, 84, 13, and 16 before 1977). And to make it more complicated, lots of those routes had independent portions signed as such that weren't part of a legislative designation.

Instead of a situation like the one above, every independent segment of US-89 is now simply designated SR-89. Keeps things much simpler.
Logged
Interstate clinches: 14, 82, 215 (UT), 225, 345, 444, 575, 985
US clinches: 491, 550

Flickr
Imgur

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9589
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:42:53 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4410 on: December 19, 2018, 07:33:09 PM »

That would prevent the state from duplicating numbers across different highway classifications. I really don't think Cicero Avenue in Chicago should be renumbered just because of the existence of US-50 more than 150 miles south of Kankakee

I don't see why this is ever desirable, even if duplicate route numbers are miles apart.

Why does Cicero Ave have to have a "route 50" designation?

I don't see why it's undesirable.

One reason it might be desirable is to use as many lower numbers as possible, as those are arguably easier for people to read and remember.  No sense in using larger numbers when there are smaller numbers going unused.

Take, for example, MO-49.  No chance in hell it could ever be mistaken for I-49, yet you'd have the state write legislation to change the route number, the highway department put up new signage, residents and businesses change their address, etc, etc...  All for what gain?

(had to give this a bit of thought, because you make good points)

If a state currently does not use a system like Utah or Washington, where all routes are legislatively state routes, I can see why conversion to this style might not be worth the change. When CA and WA adopted this numbering style in 1964 (OR chose not to), the state highway networks were still expanding (making it the best time for a numbering change). It made sense at the time to reduce the chance of confusion for drivers, especially if the state's grid aligned too closely with the national grid, and to simplify route numbering for legislative purposes (to avoid having to use hidden or duplicate routes, a la FL or AL, to keep track of routes for maintenance, etc).

Using WA as an example, if I understand WA route numbering correctly, "SR 5" (if it weren't assigned to I-5) would have been very close to I-5, perhaps even overlapping it, due to how our grid aligns with the Interstate grid. Back in 1967, when US-12 was expanded into WA, it aligned almost exactly with existing SR-12, which (I believe) was then renumbered to SR-14, or SR-14 was expanded to cover former sections of SR-12...not sure which.

From a purely colloquial point of view, states like WA, CA, and UT get to say "route X" without having to specify further. Here in WA, using the term "US" is rather unusual; we tend to prefer "Highway" (so, "Highway 2" or "Highway 12"). The nice thing is, we're not even wrong saying that, since US-2 and US-12 are legally state highways with fancy shields. Does this make a huge difference long term? Perhaps. I guess, in the eyes of 60s/70s lawmakers, the change to the "federal route as state route" style of numbering seemed to make more sense in almost everyone's point of view.

EDIT: forgot to mention. Here in Seattle, we have our "500 series" freeways. It's possible this numbering style was chosen so that "5xx" usually meant freeway or very important Seattle-area route, because our numbering style does sometimes eliminate the ability to use lower numbers. That said, not that many interstates or US routes exist in WA to begin with, so there's probably more to it than that. But that's an option for this style of numbering, to improve route number recognition when lower numbers are taken.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2018, 07:47:04 PM by jakeroot »
Logged
Avid user of bit.ly. I would never post malicious links, but if you'd like to verify my links for peace of mind, feel free to use either of these sites. Thanks!

https://wheregoes.com/
http://getlinkinfo.com/

apeman33

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 301
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Augusta, KS
  • Last Login: April 02, 2019, 04:40:37 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4411 on: December 20, 2018, 01:01:09 AM »

Posted either sometime this morning or very early afternoon, the perhaps first-ever documentation of a white sunflower shield.


This should probably have been posted in the "Signs with Design Errors" thread, but...

Do you know if any of the other approaches have similar white sunflowers?  I'll be passing through that junction in a few days.

I looked around. Just this one at the time. They appeared to still be in the process of installing signs, so there might be a possibility that they could have put up at least one other.
Logged

cjk374

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2035
  • The road less travelled is well worn under my feet

  • Age: 45
  • Location: Simsboro, LA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:59:58 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4412 on: December 20, 2018, 06:50:34 AM »

Posted either sometime this morning or very early afternoon, the perhaps first-ever documentation of a white sunflower shield.


This is hopefully not the beginning of KS shields losing their unique quality that makes it a KS shield....similar to LA losing the green from its state shields.
Logged
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13025
  • A sense of humor is a wonderful thing. Get one.

  • Age: 57
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: Today at 02:18:56 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4413 on: December 20, 2018, 11:09:04 AM »

That would prevent the state from duplicating numbers across different highway classifications. I really don't think Cicero Avenue in Chicago should be renumbered just because of the existence of US-50 more than 150 miles south of Kankakee

I don't see why this is ever desirable, even if duplicate route numbers are miles apart.

Why does Cicero Ave have to have a "route 50" designation?

I don't see why it's undesirable.

One reason it might be desirable is to use as many lower numbers as possible, as those are arguably easier for people to read and remember.  No sense in using larger numbers when there are smaller numbers going unused.

Take, for example, MO-49.  No chance in hell it could ever be mistaken for I-49, yet you'd have the state write legislation to change the route number, the highway department put up new signage, residents and businesses change their address, etc, etc...  All for what gain?

I don't know if Kentucky has given any thought to changing the number of KY 69 because of the presence of I-69 in the state now. If so, it could be done here administratively, as route numbers are not written into statute.
Logged

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9857
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: Today at 05:35:31 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4414 on: December 20, 2018, 12:26:52 PM »

This is hopefully not the beginning of KS shields losing their unique quality that makes it a KS shield....similar to LA losing the green from its state shields.

Road construction signage variances should never be taken as indicative of actual future changes.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

Mccojm

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 38
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Long Island, NY (Suffolk County)
  • Last Login: April 17, 2019, 09:54:09 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4415 on: December 20, 2018, 02:46:15 PM »

Found this error on wb ny-25a just east on ny-110 in Huntington.




iPhone
Logged
My input does not reflect those of NYS, NYSDOT, or any other government or non-government agency.  Do not take anything I say as truth unless it is released by said agencies.

NYSDOT R10 Long Island Experience:
TCI: 05/2013-07/2016
JE/ET: 07/2016-05/2018
PET: 05/2018-Present

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 7969
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 11:03:42 PM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4416 on: December 20, 2018, 03:23:27 PM »

This is hopefully not the beginning of KS shields losing their unique quality that makes it a KS shield....similar to LA losing the green from its state shields.

Road construction signage variances should never be taken as indicative of actual future changes.

It wouldn't make sense for Kansas to change to white. At least, not for the reasons Louisiana did.

Green Louisiana shields were made by printing with green ink on white sheeting. This green ink was more expensive, and tended to fade faster than black ink does. Thus, LaDOTD decided it was more economical to go to black and white.

K-shields are printed with black ink on yellow sheeting. They already have to have yellow sheeting around for warning signs, so it's not any more expensive than it would be to print on white, and they use the same black ink they use for warnings, US route shields, regulatory signs, etc. So the only reason Kansas would abandon the yellow sunflower is if they just thought it looked better. And that would be silly, because if a flower is white, it's not a sunflower.
Logged

formulanone

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6507
  • Age: 45
  • Location: HSV
  • Last Login: Today at 10:37:54 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4417 on: December 20, 2018, 05:00:43 PM »

Found this error on wb ny-25a just east on ny-110 in Huntington.



On loan from West Virginia?

Brandon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10242
  • Mr. Accelerator is our friend; Mr. Brake is not.

  • Age: 42
  • Location: Joliet, IL
  • Last Login: Today at 10:19:39 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4418 on: December 20, 2018, 05:12:49 PM »

That would prevent the state from duplicating numbers across different highway classifications. I really don't think Cicero Avenue in Chicago should be renumbered just because of the existence of US-50 more than 150 miles south of Kankakee

I don't see why this is ever desirable, even if duplicate route numbers are miles apart.

Why does Cicero Ave have to have a "route 50" designation?

Because it was designated as State Bond Issue (SBI) Route 50 prior to the US highway system being designated in Illinois.  It's also an entirely different route (as Illinois 50) than US-50 downstate.  No one would ever confuse the two.

Here's a closer example, M-96 and I-96 in Michigan.  Again, even though these are much closer together than the Illinois example (IL-50 and US-50), no one ever gets them confused as one is "M-96" and the other is "I-96" or "96".
Logged
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

Illinois: America's own banana republic.

Screw the KSA; Stand with Canada.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9589
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:42:53 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4419 on: December 20, 2018, 05:33:30 PM »

That would prevent the state from duplicating numbers across different highway classifications. I really don't think Cicero Avenue in Chicago should be renumbered just because of the existence of US-50 more than 150 miles south of Kankakee

I don't see why this is ever desirable, even if duplicate route numbers are miles apart.

Why does Cicero Ave have to have a "route 50" designation?

Because it was designated as State Bond Issue (SBI) Route 50 prior to the US highway system being designated in Illinois.  It's also an entirely different route (as Illinois 50) than US-50 downstate.  No one would ever confuse the two.

Here's a closer example, M-96 and I-96 in Michigan.  Again, even though these are much closer together than the Illinois example (IL-50 and US-50), no one ever gets them confused as one is "M-96" and the other is "I-96" or "96".

Read my post above, Brandon. And don't give people too much credit. I was just talking to somebody the other day who was confused by the existence of signals on the corners of intersections. People are really fucking stupid. WA (and other states) were in a position in the 1960s to overhaul their route number systems to eliminate even the slightest chance of confusion, but as states slow down highway construction, I see no reason to change things these days.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2018, 03:37:09 PM by jakeroot »
Logged
Avid user of bit.ly. I would never post malicious links, but if you'd like to verify my links for peace of mind, feel free to use either of these sites. Thanks!

https://wheregoes.com/
http://getlinkinfo.com/

SectorZ

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 892
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Tewksbury, MA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:37:34 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4420 on: December 20, 2018, 05:44:04 PM »

Found this error on wb ny-25a just east on ny-110 in Huntington.



On loan from West Virginia?

Or pointing to Connecticut 110 across the sound.
Logged

ThatTenneseeRoadgeek

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 52
  • One of the best Roadgeeks in the State of Florida.

  • Age: 18
  • Location: Apalachicola, FL
  • Last Login: April 16, 2019, 11:33:14 AM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4421 on: January 18, 2019, 10:52:09 AM »

Logged

cjk374

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2035
  • The road less travelled is well worn under my feet

  • Age: 45
  • Location: Simsboro, LA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:59:58 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4422 on: January 18, 2019, 11:27:35 PM »

This is hopefully not the beginning of KS shields losing their unique quality that makes it a KS shield....similar to LA losing the green from its state shields.

Road construction signage variances should never be taken as indicative of actual future changes.

It wouldn't make sense for Kansas to change to white. At least, not for the reasons Louisiana did.

Green Louisiana shields were made by printing with green ink on white sheeting. This green ink was more expensive, and tended to fade faster than black ink does. Thus, LaDOTD decided it was more economical to go to black and white.

K-shields are printed with black ink on yellow sheeting. They already have to have yellow sheeting around for warning signs, so it's not any more expensive than it would be to print on white, and they use the same black ink they use for warnings, US route shields, regulatory signs, etc. So the only reason Kansas would abandon the yellow sunflower is if they just thought it looked better. And that would be silly, because if a flower is white, it's not a sunflower.

I have never seen a green Louisiana shield fade. Do you have pics of any?
Logged
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

Mr. Matté

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 605
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Exit '08
  • Last Login: Today at 12:45:32 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4423 on: February 24, 2019, 11:39:02 AM »

This stop ahead sign along CR 534 in BurlCo, NJ states the stop sign is 857 feet. Not only is the distance an oddball amount, it's incorrect. The centerline distance to the stop bar is about 764 feet while the actual 857-foot measurement puts it past the intersection to the stop bar on the opposite side of the intersection.
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8943
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: April 16, 2019, 11:41:39 PM
Re: Erroneous road signs
« Reply #4424 on: April 02, 2019, 07:41:18 PM »

This assembly in Crestline, KS https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/47472796512/ has it showing both N Bound US 69 and E Bound US 160 going left and straight.  In reality both implied directions are straight and to the left is SB US 69 and WB US 160.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.